W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Inadequate rationales (Was: Change Proposals and Counter-Proposals)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:58:27 -0500
Message-ID: <4B5503B3.5060501@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Shelley has observed a number of cases where the rationales that were
>>> supposed to be provided were not adequate (and, no, I don't believe that
>>> any response that amounts to "go dig in the email archives" is an
>>> adequate response).
>> This happens occasionally (especially on editorial issues) when I'm doing
>> a lot of bugs at once. Everyone should please feel free to reopen bugs for
>> which they feel my rationale was inadequate.
>> --
>> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> You rather scathingly told me not to do this when I did, and told me
> there was a procedure in place, and to raise an issue and NOT to
> reopen the bug.

I have no interest in revisiting the current set of WONTFIX bugs that 
led to the current set of open issues.  Going forward, I would prefer 
reopening bugs with inadequate rationales over raising issues -- even if 
that should happen to be over the stated wishes of both the person 
raising the issue and the editor.

And to be clear: by inadequate, I mean "not enough there", not "I disagree".

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:59:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC